Indicators for verification systems

What the clause says

For a verification system the indicator reflects the authority of the record, the integrity of the document and the binding of the result to the person. The framework does not reduce it to a single accuracy figure.

What it supplies to a comparison

A verification comparison tests issuer authority, alteration, freshness and binding. Those results explain more than a percentage and should be reported beside it.

Evidence to keep

• The issuer and document type for each test case.
• The alteration and binding test results, case by case.

What the evidence looks like

For 6.2.1, the first artefact is The issuer and document type for each test case.. The second is The alteration and binding test results, case by case.. If 6.2.1 has no first artefact, the practice is unproven at 6.2.1, and the report should record the absence rather than infer the practice from a policy.

Questions for the provider

1. Which issuer authorities are accepted, and how is each checked?
2. What test would catch a valid document used by the wrong person?

How it connects to the draft

Indicators for verification systems belongs to 6 indicators of confidence, and it gives the analysis one fixed point: A verification comparison tests issuer authority, alteration, freshness and binding. Those results explain more than a percentage and should be report. A comparison that cannot place a result against 6.2.1 is measuring something the framework has not defined, and the report should say so.

In the register, 6.2.1 is read beside the unit that tests it, and where it sets an objective rather than a number, that unit turns the objective into a question and an evidence artefact.